PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Lol........:rotfl: , I loved that, gonna post this to people I know, catchy too, I will be singing it myself soon.........pmsl.........:rotfl: lol.

I'm cooking tea singing it...its brill i think.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I'm cooking tea singing it...its brill i think.

lol, its one of those songs that stay with you and I know I'm gonna drive hubby mad with it, I've only just signed back in and played it 4 times already........:rotfl: :rotfl: lol, its cool.......:D

HomeSpun

tiggrae wrote: »

what they have done is apply default charges in accordance with their terms and conditions which are an unfair contract term under the Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Regulations 1999 - what you need to do is claim those back - you should be able to do this as these types of charges are not included within the test case currently on-going which has stopped all bank charges being reclaim. In the first instance you need to write to them and tell them you want them back as they are a penalty and are therefore, unlawful under common law (refer to the bank charges forum for the exact wording)

Thank you! I've sent a DPA request to them today, I originally requested all information in my first letter quoted above and sent yesterday, but my understanding of BH is that they don't comply with letters unless they really have to so I sent an 'official' DPA request with a £10 cheque in today in addition to the PPI letter.

Should I wait the 40+days (I'm certain they'll drag it out) until I receive their reply or should I write to them tomorrow requesting repayment of the charges?

You lot certainly know your stuff - I'm very impressed!

ETA Paramol worked a treat and I don't feel quite so 'high' now! Glad to hear your headache has gone di3004 (can I call you Di?) - you have my sympathies.

Sorry to hear your daughter suffers from them Marshallka, my middle daughter gets them too (she's 8 and has had them for about a year). They're very irregular though and present initially as stomach ache, before her head starts. Luckily I very rarely get a blinding migraine anymore, maybe 3 or 4 a year, but I used to get that many a week - hence the Naramig which caused the CDH.

di3004

HomeSpun wrote: »

Thank you! I've sent a DPA request to them today, I originally requested all information in my first letter quoted above and sent yesterday, but my understanding of BH is that they don't comply with letters unless they really have to so I sent an 'official' DPA request with a £10 cheque in today in addition to the PPI letter.

Should I wait the 40+days (I'm certain they'll drag it out) until I receive their reply or should I write to them tomorrow requesting repayment of the charges?

You lot certainly know your stuff - I'm very impressed!

ETA Paramol worked a treat and I don't feel quite so 'high' now! Glad to hear your headache has gone di3004 (can I call you Di?) - you have my sympathies.

Sorry to hear your daughter suffers from them Marshallka, my middle daughter gets them too (she's 8 and has had them for about a year). They're very irregular though and present initially as stomach ache, before her head starts. Luckily I very rarely get a blinding migraine anymore, maybe 3 or 4 a year, but I used to get that many a week - hence the Naramig which caused the CDH.

Aww thank you HS your very thoughtful, hope all is well with you too, and migraines seem to run through the family unfortunately, and like yourself we learn to get through them......;) .
Oh yes do please call me Di, your most welcome, you can call me dizzy if you want to......I am known as that over the road.......:o , lol, "the dizzy blonde" where I do get those moments....most of time really lol.......:o .

We wish you well with you claims, and we are all here for you.:beer:

Di.
x

marshallka

HomeSpun wrote: »

Thank you! I've sent a DPA request to them today, I originally requested all information in my first letter quoted above and sent yesterday, but my understanding of BH is that they don't comply with letters unless they really have to so I sent an 'official' DPA request with a £10 cheque in today in addition to the PPI letter.

Should I wait the 40+days (I'm certain they'll drag it out) until I receive their reply or should I write to them tomorrow requesting repayment of the charges?

You lot certainly know your stuff - I'm very impressed!

ETA Paramol worked a treat and I don't feel quite so 'high' now! Glad to hear your headache has gone di3004 (can I call you Di?) - you have my sympathies.

Sorry to hear your daughter suffers from them Marshallka, my middle daughter gets them too (she's 8 and has had them for about a year). They're very irregular though and present initially as stomach ache, before her head starts. Luckily I very rarely get a blinding migraine anymore, maybe 3 or 4 a year, but I used to get that many a week - hence the Naramig which caused the CDH.

Thanks, she has them fewer now but did suffer and the light and noise really hurt bad. The very first one I wanted to take her to hospital as her head hurt so much. She is always better after vomiting (yuck but it works!!). She has migralieve now. Work well for her if we catch it early enough.

Good luck with all your letters. A lot of work but best getting them all done and dusted. Let us know how you get on.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Thanks, she has them fewer now but did suffer and the light and noise really hurt bad. The very first one I wanted to take her to hospital as her head hurt so much. She is always better after vomiting (yuck but it works!!). She has migralieve now. Work well for her if we catch it early enough.

Good luck with all your letters. A lot of work but best getting them all done and dusted. Let us know how you get on.

Aww bless her Marshallka, its not nice seeing kids suffer is it?, I remember my son with his very first one, and of course we done what you had done taken him to get this checked out, as you know best be safe than sorry, and as soon as he vomited (Yuk) ! he was as right as rain, but now he is old enough now to know what one of these is and what to expect, but its scary isn't it ?

tiggrae

HomeSpun wrote: »

Thank you! I've sent a DPA request to them today, I originally requested all information in my first letter quoted above and sent yesterday, but my understanding of BH is that they don't comply with letters unless they really have to so I sent an 'official' DPA request with a £10 cheque in today in addition to the PPI letter.

Should I wait the 40+days (I'm certain they'll drag it out) until I receive their reply or should I write to them tomorrow requesting repayment of the charges?

You lot certainly know your stuff - I'm very impressed!

ETA Paramol worked a treat and I don't feel quite so 'high' now! Glad to hear your headache has gone di3004 (can I call you Di?) - you have my sympathies.

Sorry to hear your daughter suffers from them Marshallka, my middle daughter gets them too (she's 8 and has had them for about a year). They're very irregular though and present initially as stomach ache, before her head starts. Luckily I very rarely get a blinding migraine anymore, maybe 3 or 4 a year, but I used to get that many a week - hence the Naramig which caused the CDH.

do you think the £145 is the extent of the charges they've imposed - then there's no need to wait to claim them back - if not wait for the relevant info. and see how much in default charges they've imposed upon you then claim them back -

di3004

This was added here before just read it through again, very interesting read this, soz to go on folks lol.......:o


PAGE 93 10.54 There is nothing in itself illegal or improper about directors of a failed company walking away and trying again with a brand new company. There is likewise nothing illegal about a new company being formed which has a very similar name to a company which has been dissolved. Nonetheless the law sees it as being against both the public interest and commercial ethics for directors of an insolvent company to continue their business activities in circumstances where they appear to be trying to delude past and prospective clients and customers into thinking that the defunct business is continuing.

10.55 A new company which is formed in these circumstances is often referred to as a ‘phoenix company’ because of the false impression it creates that a company has risen intact from the flames of insolvency.

10.56 Special safeguards exist to prevent directors of companies that have gone out of business from becoming involved in phoenix companies. Where a director becomes involved with such a company he or she will commit a criminal offence and may also be made personally liable for the debts of that company.

10.57 Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court:
• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name or business name
• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, management of any such company
• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name.
A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86).

PAGE 94 10.59 It must also be borne in mind that the restrictions on directors apply not only to acting in respect of new companies formed after another company has gone into liquidation – this is the common understanding of the term ‘phoenix company’. The restrictions apply equally to acting in respect of existing companies and businesses. This means that persons who have been directors of two companies with similar names may find themselves in breach of section 216 once one of the two companies goes into insolvent liquidation. The restrictions can, therefore, have particular ramifications for group companies, many of which will have very similar names.

HomeSpun

tiggrae wrote: »

do you think the £145 is the extent of the charges they've imposed - then there's no need to wait to claim them back - if not wait for the relevant info. and see how much in default charges they've imposed upon you then claim them back -

£145 is the total of the charges that I am aware of. I know of no other charges having been added to this account, although BH have proven themselves to be less than accurate with administration by telling me I owe one amount, promising not to add charges to this and then changing that amount once it's been paid off so I can't be certain, or I'm as certain as I can be, depending on how you look at it lol.

As an aside to this, a quick 'google' has revealed many people attempting to reclaim PPI from BH unsuccessfully, although a number were unsuccessful as their loan began before 14th Jan 05, prior to BH being regulated by the FSA (or whoever it is, mind is foggy again!) whereas my loan commenced on 29/06/05. I cannot find one case of anyone being successful in a PPI claim against them, although I have found several people who were successful in a charges claim, they seem to just fold if you are persistent, so mixed news there. They also seem to base their replies to PPI claims on the 'you can't prove it' defence, which is very applicable here as, physically, I can't. However, they won't have banked on the fact that the letter I received yesterday really annoyed me and I'm quite determined when I get going!

Based on the fact that I know of no other charges, and I believe I can add any that transpire as a result of my DPA request (please, please correct me if I am wrong here!), I may well send the charges letter tomorrow.

marshallka

Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company.

59 It must also be borne in mind that the restrictions on directors apply not only to acting in respect of new companies formed after another company has gone into liquidation – this is the common understanding of the term ‘phoenix company’. The restrictions apply equally to acting in respect of existing companies and businesses. This means that persons who have been directors of two companies with similar names may find themselves in breach of section 216 once one of the two companies goes into insolvent liquidation. The restrictions can, therefore, have particular ramifications for group companies, many of which will have very similar names.


I have not mentioned this again today as tiggrae said earlier that


the law doens't support that as the company is dissolved and there's nothing left) you're just doing it go 'get even' and maybe get them shut down - do you really want to stress yourself and have their solicitors writing you nasty letters - that's just a personal opinion mind

and

again a phoenix company by definition rises from the ashes - financial was set up before the other dissolved so accusing people of operating phoenix firms could potentially be seen as libel - sometimes the law is VERY black and white and you have to be careful what you put in writing



But the two references here suggest that a phoenix not only means new companies but can also mean existing companies.

I think you have a chance of getting your PPI money back here and make them liable. You are not going to try to get them closed down. You couldn't do that. That is entirely up to the authorities here, you want back your money. Just my opinion Di. This is where you need to find out (as I have posted a million times before) if they applied for their leave to court for this. (as it states here - without leave to court!!)

Have you ever actually accused them of being a phoenix company Di.. That OFT letter does not actually accuse them.

Also if any acts were to be mentioned I would have mentioned the Insolvency Act and section 216 too.